David Amess: Although I might admire the Secretary of State's presentation of his case, surely he realises that he is loosing all credibility in this matter when 1.5 million people who should take up the benefit do not do so, when the Minister for Pensions Reform was barracked by the pensioners parliament and when, finally, the Pensions Commission's report says that means-tested benefits are a positive disincentive to save.

David Blunkett: I have always enjoyed the hon. Gentleman's flattery, and I shall do so in future. I remember that he once praised the National Union of Teachers' attack on me, and we now hear the pensioners parliament in Blackpool being applauded for attacking my hon. Friend the Minister for Pensions Reform, who is doing a first-rate job in explaining how getting 2.7 million households out of poverty is a good thing, not a bad thing and something of which we should all be very proud. The answer must be to get individuals, employers and the Government to put together a programme for the future that meets the impossible aspirational circle according to which people want to live longer, to live better, to retire earlier and want someone else to pay. We in Government need to have answers to those questions, which is why we are working on the dialogue with the Pensions Commission to find answers for the future.

Madeleine Moon: Will the Minister, as part of his consideration of the consultation on the Pensions Commission, examine the plight of carers such as Mrs. Hill of Aberkenfig in my constituency, who had provided care for her daughter for 41 years but who, on reaching retirement age, lost her invalid care allowance and then had to provide the care only in return for her pension? Can we consider how carers can benefit as they carry on caring into pensionable age?

Stephen Timms: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will tell people who raise such matters with him that it certainly is worth saving for retirement and that if people have got the impression that it is not, they are mistaken. Under the previous Government, many pensioners were left behind and were in difficult circumstances in 1997—for example, a lot of single pensioners were on income support of less than £70 a week, whereas all are now entitled to at least £109 a week. In designing future systems, we must not allow acute pensioner poverty to rise again. However, I repeat: it is worth saving for retirement and I hope that he will tell people that if they want an income in retirement of more than £109 a week, they need to save.

Linda Gilroy: I thank my hon. Friend on behalf of the 5,500 pensioners in my area who are in receipt of pension credit, about 4,000 of whom are, I believe, also in receipt of the minimum income guarantee. Many of them stopped me during the election campaign to tell me that it had transformed their lives.
	I raised water charges with his predecessor, who took an interest in the matter. At £100 more than the average, charges in the south-west are by far the highest in the country. Will my hon. Friend take an interest in the outcome of the cross-governmental review of water affordability, on which his Department was represented, in particular the pilot scheme in the south-west of England to examine how benefit checks combined with water efficiency measures and water metering can have an impact on dealing with poverty and low incomes?

David Blunkett: Perhaps I could lay to rest a misapprehension that Conservative Members have expressed throughout the afternoon, when they said that I have talked about people selling their own house. I was actually talking about realising a very large asset that someone has inherited from a relative. Like annuities, that asset could be realised when they wanted to spend the money. It is important that those people, as well as individuals considering their income in retirement, take that into account. If we could get that right we would all be a lot better off.

John Mann: What timescale has been set for all Child Support Agency claimants to be assessed on the new system.

James Plaskitt: I entirely understand my hon. Friend's point. As I have said, 463,000 cases are subject to the new formula. Maintenance settlements under the new formula are different from those under the old formula—all hon. Members have dealt with maintenance settlements under the old formula that are difficult to understand. The transfer of cases to the new formula will involve a phased process to allow both the non-resident parent and the parent with care to get used to the new formula. It has been suggested that that process will involve a three-year phasing, which is one of the issues that the chief executive is examining, and we will be interested to see what the he says about it in his report.

Paul Goodman: I congratulate the Minister on his appointment but remind him of what he said about the CSA a few weeks ago at Work and Pensions questions, when he was asking questions rather than answering them:
	"We are fast approaching a point at which we shall be running two CSAs in parallel. That is not sustainable. Whose fault is it, and when will it be put right?"—[Official Report, 8 November 2004; Vol. 426, c. 553.]
	So I ask him, whose fault is it, and when will it be put right?

Richard Burden: My right hon. Friend will be aware that there has been some concern about whether pensioners from the MG Rover pension scheme will be assisted through the financial assistance scheme, particularly as more than one company in that group is not currently in administration. I welcome my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State's very firm commitment on sorting the matter out. Can my right hon. Friend update us on that, particularly as regards the rather perverse situation of people who have taken early retirement but could end up with less money unless we get their position sorted out?

Anne McGuire: One of the principles behind our reform is that any new system should deliver for women and carers, and all options for reform will be assessed against that criterion. My hon. and learned Friend is quite correct; many women have been left behind in regard to their eligibility for a full state pension, largely as a result of the demographic and cultural and social situations in the 1940s, 1950s and 1960s. There is now a commitment to make pensions work for women, and I hope that my hon. and learned Friend will participate in forming the consensus that we are trying to establish around creating a pension scheme that truly delivers for women and carers.

Huw Irranca-Davies: If he will meet Ministers in the National Assembly for Wales Government and in Westminster to discuss economic inactivity in South Wales valleys.

David Blunkett: I very much look forward to returning to Wales shortly, and to visiting the "want to work" pilots. I shall be able to point out, as will my hon. Friend in his constituency in the Bridgend local authority area, that inactivity rates have been reduced and that activity rates have risen from 66.5 per cent. when we were elected in 1997 to 72 per cent. today.
	My hon. Friend will know, as I do from representing a south Yorkshire seat, that many of those who are inactive today were made redundant by the Conservative party in the 1980s and 1990s and have languished on incapacity benefit ever since. We need to ensure that that never happens again.

William Cash: Against the background of this historic opportunity, does the Prime Minister recall the words of William Pitt, who said in 1801:
	"England has saved herself by her exertions and will, I trust, save Europe by her example."?
	In the light of what the Prime Minister has said, does he also recall that it is highly improbable that William Pitt would have signed the constitutional treaty, but that Churchill said that we should be "associated but not absorbed"? Will the Prime Minister take this opportunity to take up the message that Churchill issued and then say that he would agree to co-operate with those of us who have just set up the European reform forum to look at all the existing treaties and then find the way forward? This is a historic opportunity. Will the Prime Minister help us to co-operate in finding the way forward in the interests of this country?

Ian Paisley: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the controversy raging over the Common Market and the common agricultural policy is a smokescreen to cover up the real issue, which is the rejection of the European constitution? Will he assure the House and the people of this United Kingdom that there will be no renegotiation of the rebate because a pistol from Europe has been put to his head or our head and that he will only go forward for that which is best for Britain, because what is best for Britain will be best for Europe? Will he assure the farming community that what they have been promised will come to then and that, if anybody has to be de-CAPed, it is not British farmers, but French ones?

Tony Blair: To put my hon. Friend's mind at rest might be too vaulting an ambition, but I can tell him that the social Europe in which I believe is, for example, a Europe in which we make it easier for people to transfer their skills across the EU; a Europe in which we invest in active welfare programmes, as we in this country are in doing in the new deal for the unemployed; a Europe that spends more of its budget on science, research and development, so that in industries such as biotechnology, where we will face fierce competition from countries such as India and China, we can ensure that the industry grown here in the EU is strong. There is a range of social policies on which we can co-operate. However, what I do not think will bring a more competitive economy, either in this country or in Europe is, for example, supporting the provisions of the working time directive that were recently debated. That is a different vision of the European social model, not a vision that abandons that social model.

Charles Clarke: I beg to move, That the Bill be now read a Second time.
	I rise to invite the House to give a Second Reading to the Violent Crime Reduction Bill. As colleagues on both sides of the House will know, the introduction of the Bill was a manifesto commitment at the general election. It reflected deep concerns that existed in many parts of the country and were in turn reflected in the election debate. I believe that the steps that we are setting out today will make a contribution towards addressing those concerns in a serious and positive way.
	It will be clear to everyone that violent crime takes a wide variety of forms, ranging from common assault, often fuelled by alcohol, through to more serious crimes such as sexual assault and crimes where guns, knives and other offensive weapons are used which can lead in extreme cases to homicide. Although the British crime survey data show considerable falls in violent crime since 1997—by about 26 per cent.—it remains the case that in many parts of the country there is high, and genuine, concern about the level of violent crime, and a strong desire, reflected, I am sure, by Members on both sides of the House, to take the most appropriate steps to deal with it.
	The proposals in the Bill are part of our ongoing work to tackle violent crime in all forms and to make the country much safer for its law-abiding citizens. The overall objection of the legislation is to provide the police and local communities with the powers that they need in two specific areas: first, alcohol-related violence; and secondly, the use of weapons, particularly guns and knives.
	I want to deal first with alcohol-related violence and disorder. It is obvious, I think, that alcohol misuse is closely linked with a wide range of crime, disorder and antisocial behaviour. It is a highly visible part of the night-time economy and, moreover, a phenomenon no longer confined to weekends. The British crime survey shows that 33 per cent. of stranger and 25 per cent. of acquaintance alcohol-related assaults happen on weekday evenings and nights. The effects are widely apparent and have an impact on large numbers of people in a variety of ways.

Charles Clarke: Of course, a person would have recourse to the police complaints procedure, and to getting his or her case taken up in that way. However, I want to make a serious response about proportionality. In relation to the hypothetical situation in which a whole series of offences could be committed in a particular area, the sanctions that we are proposing are not enormous. Examples include an individual being asked to leave a locality for up to 48 hours, or the imposition of a drinking banning order lasting between two months and a maximum of two years. I acknowledge that there will be consequences, however, and if an individual has been wrongly accused, he will be able to have his case taken up. However, there is a difference in proportion between an issue of that kind and some of the other scales of penalty that can be applied, and that needs to be taken fully into account.
	The third measure covered here relates to alcohol disorder zones. As I have said, as well as individuals, the industry and licensed premises have a major role in helping to end the binge-drinking culture, for the simple reason that nearly half all violent crime is alcohol-related. One in five violent incidents take place around pubs or clubs, and 35 per cent. of hospital accident and emergency admissions are alcohol-related. That rises to 70 per cent. between midnight and 5 am. Parts of too many of our towns and cities have become unpleasant places to visit on some evenings, and that can be exacerbated by a mixture of poor operating practice in certain sections of the trade and public spaces having to cope with large numbers of people heading for the town centres.
	I welcome the steps that some in the trade have already taken to raise operating standards. Initiatives such as the one mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Blackpool, North and Fleetwood, the "best bar none" accreditation scheme first launched in Manchester, and the constructive work of the trade associations to develop clear standards for responsible retail of alcohol—for instance, the recently published document on drinks promotions—are steps in the right direction, and we want to encourage them. There is more to be done, however. The Licensing Act 2003 gives the police and local authorities more powers to come down hard on irresponsible operators, and we need to make sure that the powers to review licences are used to their maximum potential.
	I nevertheless think it incumbent on us all to face the fact mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for City of York (Hugh Bayley). Much alcohol-related disorder in town and city centres at night takes place in the streets around pubs and clubs rather than inside them. That requires a change of approach.

Charles Clarke: First, there is a clear difference between the way in which the law treats "good" and "bad" landlords, in the sense that the "bad" landlords will have a series of sanctions that apply against them, and rightly so, while the "good" landlord will not. Secondly, it is important to stimulate every landlord, good or bad, to recognise that the welfare of an area depends on all landlords working together to drive out the bad and encourage the good. I believe that the Bill will help with that.

Charles Clarke: My hon. Friend's point is powerful and true—I have seen precisely that happen in some parts of the country. I can confirm that in Committee we will consider whether there is a better way to target penalties in that regard.
	The second major issue that the Bill addresses is the abuse of weapons, particularly guns and knives. Again, there are five specific measures to which I want to draw attention, the first of which concerns using someone to mind a weapon. It is already an offence illegally to possess an unlawful firearm, and to carry knives and other weapons in public without reasonable excuse. The Criminal Justice Act 2003 introduced a mandatory minimum sentence of five years for illegal possession of an unlawful firearm, but the truth is that offenders can skirt the law by using other people—their friends, family or siblings—to carry their weapons or to hide them for them, in a manner not dissimilar to that which my hon. Friend referred in respect of the purchase of alcohol. As well as such a person's being put at risk of harm from the weapon, they are also at risk of prosecution, while the offender escapes scot-free. In cases where children are used, they may be at risk of the longer-term harm of involvement in gun and knife crime, as a result of such early association with weapons.
	It is clear that we need to close this loophole, so the Bill will make it an offence to use a person to hide or to carry a knife or firearm. In addition, if a young person under the age of 18 has been used, it must be regarded as an aggravating factor, which will affect the length of the sentence handed down. The penalties for this offence will be in line with those already existing for possession and send a very clear message that we will not tolerate the possession of such weapons in our society and that passing them on to another person, particularly if that person is a child, will not leave someone in the clear.
	The second measure in this part of the Bill deals with air weapons—a matter of great concern across the House.

Stephen Hesford: Will the right hon. Gentleman divide the House on the Bill tonight?

David Davis: I will not give the hon. Gentleman advance whipping advice. He should talk to his own Whips Office if he wants the night off. However, I shall explain what our stance on the Bill will be, both today and in Committee.
	In the past everyone assumed that violent offences were a priority for the police and very high clear-up rates gave grounds for thinking so. Under the Conservative Government, almost 80 per cent. of crimes of violence against the person were solved. Now, that figure has fallen to only 50 per cent. What kind of deterrent is that to criminals? What sort of protection does it afford the public? What sort of reassurance does it give the victims of crime? It is nothing short of a scandal and, although the Bill contains some worthwhile proposals, it will not resolve that problem.
	We consider some of the measures the Home Secretary proposes useful. They might help the courts or assist the police and we want to do both. We shall not oppose for the sake of opposition: we shall consider what is on offer and try to improve it. Judging by the Home Secretary's remarks, there is scope for discussion and improvement. However, taken as a whole, we consider the Bill to be a woefully inadequate response to the crisis of violence and disorder that the public now face. Seen in the wider context of the Government's measures, the Bill is a qualified admission of defeat. So far, the Government have introduced more than 40 Bills, 200 Home Office initiatives and 350 new regulations, all aimed at quelling the tide of crime. But that tide has kept coming, and Ministers are now scrambling for the lifeboats.
	Crime statistics have sometimes—today not least—been prayed in aid of the Government's case that they are tackling crime effectively, but although the statistics are in some respects ambiguous, they offer no way out. In international terms, the picture is dire. According to the international crime victimisation survey, Britain has the second-highest levels of criminality in the industrialised world. Moreover, despite frequent—and convenient—changes to the way in which the figures are collected and counted, the picture of violent crime in this country is not ambiguous at all. It is bad, it is worse than it was, and it is getting worse still.
	Recorded violent crime has in fact risen in four of the last five quarters. The Government's first response in such situations is always to deny the facts. Last December, the Prime Minister admitted in one of his disarming bursts of temporary frankness that violent crime has been rising. A few months later, he was keen to point out that, according to the British crime survey, violent crime had not gone up but down. He omitted to mention, however that the BCS figures are systemically flawed. They are not comprehensive, and they omit murder, sexual offences and crimes against people under 16 altogether. In the case of violent crime, they are contradicted by the recorded crime figures and by everybody's everyday experience.
	The Government's second response, once the first has collapsed, is instinctively to reach for the nearest headline-grabbing initiative, of which there are many in the Bill. Nothing comes more easily to hand than the antisocial behaviour order. Not many people have had kind words to say on Europe today, so to make up for that and to prove my inclusive credentials—[Interruption.] Yes, it will cause surprise. I commend to the House the words of Senor Gil-Robles, Commissioner for Human Rights at the Council of Europe. He observed of antisocial behaviour orders:
	"One cannot but wonder, indeed, whether their purpose is not more to reassure the public that something is being done . . . than the actual prevention of anti-social behaviour itself."
	I could not have put it better myself.
	There are, however, some parts of the Bill that we can support. Subject to the important caveat of making sure that they are both fair and effective, we welcome the greater powers to be given to magistrates, as that will allow them to ban individuals from drinking for set periods of time. There is no doubt that local authorities urgently need powers to control local drinking hotspots, and enabling courts to focus on serial drunks who populate such places may be of assistance. It is important to clarify the way in which we enforce such proposals, but we can discuss that in Committee. The proposal is not much, but it is something. We also agree with other proposals. The Bill will create the offence of using an accomplice to conceal weapons, as the Home Secretary mentioned at the end of his speech. There is evidence that a number of cases are not prosecuted successfully for lack of a weapon, so the provision may help to bring such criminals to book.
	Finally, we support the extension of the age limit for the purchase of air rifles, which is a sensible tidying-up of existing provisions. I look forward to reviewing the effect of the proposal on airsoft activities in Committee. So far, so modestly good. We also agree with the Government that there is a problem with replica firearms. Some of them can easily be converted into lethal weapons, but they are already illegal. They can be used to terrorise the public, they make life difficult for the police, and they can even lead to tragedy. We remain to be convinced, however, of the need for the measures in the Bill. It is already a criminal offence to carry a replica gun in a public place without a reasonable excuse, and the burden of proof lies with the person who carries the replica. Furthermore, the courts already sentence individuals who rob banks and shops with replica guns as severely as individuals who commit such crimes with real guns. There are no obvious gains to be made from further legislation in that respect. There also remains the age-old problem of definition that plagues measures to ban almost any dual-use object.
	Such problems are not necessarily prohibitive, but they should give legislators pause for thought. The right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham), who chairs the Home Affairs Committee, made a good point about such problems, and said that replicas could be viewed in two ways if they provoke a police response. The Bill offers a complex definition of replicas that can also be toys. It will certainly be good for barristers but, equally, I am not at all sure that it will be bad for criminals. The most important requirement, however, is action to prevent the import and sale of replicas that can be converted into guns that fire—the so-called Brococks. More effective controls need to be exercised by police and customs at our borders, particularly on internet sales—a matter on which we have called for action several times in the past 18 months and which was raised by at least two Labour Members.
	The Bill also deals with weapons of a different sort—knives. There has been a sharp increase in knife killing since 1998, and the number of offences has gone up by 17 per cent. That clearly has to be tackled, but how? There is a basic point to be made here. One does not prevent crime by banning the weapons with which it is committed, though one may be able to limit the incidence and its effects. Rather, one prevents crime by detecting, punishing and, in the case of violent crime, incarcerating those responsible. On none of these has the Government been at all effective.
	There is no reason to believe in the effectiveness of what is now proposed, which is to increase the age at which knives can legally be bought. There is no shortage of knives in circulation, and with or without the Bill, there is unlikely to be a shortage in the future. A MORI poll carried out last year revealed that a quarter of children aged between 12 and 16 admit to carrying a knife. Almost one in five of them say that they have attacked someone, intending to do injury. Let us hope that that is an exaggeration, but even if the figures are inflated, they still reveal the inadequacy of what is being proposed.
	If we want to stop knife crime, we must focus on those who use the knives, not necessarily on those who originally buy them. To that extent, I agree with the Prime Minister, who in his former capacity as shadow Home Secretary—I quoted him—argued for toughness on the causes of crime. First, we must know what we mean if we seriously mean what we say on the subject. No one is condemned by their genes, background or social class to a lifetime of crime. Plenty of people come from disadvantaged backgrounds and overcome those disadvantages, often heroically so. It is patronising and flatly wrong to suggest the opposite.
	We can and should isolate two sets of causes of crime, upon which the Government exert an influence. The first relates to the kind of behaviour that leads to criminality. At the very top of the list is the abuse of alcohol and drugs. Half of violent crime is known to be drink-related, and there has been a 10 per cent. increase in the number of people who think that drunken and rowdy behaviour is a problem in their neighbourhood. That is a disturbing trend. Some limited action through the so-called alcohol disorder zones is proposed, but if it is effective at all, its effects will be limited and slow in coming. Meanwhile, the Government's answer is to allow more drinking in more places more of the time. That is no answer. It is the reverse of a solution. More drink will mean more violent crime.
	As for drugs, hard drug use is rising sharply. The number of people frequently using class A drugs is up by more than 60 per cent. since 1998. Cocaine use among young people has doubled. The price of drugs has fallen, so cocaine is cheaper than cappuccino and ecstasy can be bought for less than a pound. That is because, although demand is increasing, the supply is soaring ahead still faster—obviously, one of the lessons of free market economics that the Government have not yet mastered. Drugs are coming through our porous borders because the controls are too weak and because they are undermanned.

John Denham: Over the past few years, the Government have achieved significant success in reducing crime overall, but there is no doubt that the perception that violent crime has risen, or is rising, mars their overall achievement and has an impact on their confidence. It is therefore not surprising, but welcome, that they have introduced the Bill.
	I use the word "perception" in relation to violent crime because it is often difficult to get a grip on exactly what is happening. When one considers, for example, that well over half of all recorded violent crime did not involve any injury to the victim, one can see that the statistics are hard to understand. That happens to be the case, although it is not quite as daft as it sounds. There has certainly been an increase in the recording of non-injury crimes that would never have been recorded by the police 10 years ago; that is why the recording system has been changed. The statistics also tell us that there has been an increase in certain types of crime that are at the more violent end of the spectrum—gun crime or knife crime—or are in more public places and involve a greater risk of crime from strangers or acquaintances.
	The sense that the number of such crimes is rising generates the current public concern. Some of us are not necessarily happy with that. Those of us who worked for years on domestic violence have never entirely bought the idea that violence from someone one knows is in some way better or more acceptable than from someone one does not know. Nevertheless, there is no doubt that the fear of violence in public places from strangers has a greater resonance with the public and makes a greater contribution to public concern.
	The Bill has some potentially useful measures, but they will be so only if they are put into practice alongside many others. It has measures that essentially close loopholes, cover gaps or nuance existing policies—for example, the difference between a banning order and an antisocial behaviour order—and measures in areas where the pressure to be seen to act has become overwhelming. I am not yet convinced that the measures on imitation firearms will reduce the number of victims of firearm crime, but I understand why my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary believes that it is necessary none the less to be seen to act against what the public generally regard as a scandal—the widespread marketing of such weapons.
	Let me deal with a couple of issues that should have been acted on previously. The measures on alcohol disorder zones are overdue. I wish that it had been possible to incorporate that approach in the Licensing Act 2003. The current proposals reflect the debate that raged within Government at that time between the argument that the whole industry, responsible or not, is plying people with alcohol in town and city centres and needs to pick up the cost, and the argument that we have to deal with badly run premises. It is welcome that my right hon. Friend has moved towards saying that the industry as a whole, not the relatively small number of badly run premises, has to pick up the costs of policing, late night transport, street cleaning and so on. The Bill potentially takes us a long way in the direction of ensuring that the costs lie where they properly should. However, I have a couple of caveats about that; it will be important to scrutinise the Bill carefully as it goes through Committee.
	I take my right hon. Friend's answer to my earlier question straightforwardly. He clearly wishes that the statutory scheme of an alcohol disorder zone, with fees set in Whitehall, should be applied locally in as few places as possible, and hopes that the threat of an action plan or the putting in place of an action plan will lead to better, locally tailored schemes that suit the needs of each area. I share that view. I have no desire to see a national scheme imposed willy-nilly on every single town and city centre. Equally, let us be blunt about this. If the Bill does not result in a much more substantial contribution from the drinks industry to the costs of policing and maintaining our town and city centres, it will fall short of what is needed. At the moment, the costs of policing those town and city centres is borne by council tax payers who by and large do not live in them—they pay their bills but do not see a police officer on a Friday or Saturday night because they are all down at the town centre policing the binge drinking. We must ensure that relatively low-scale voluntary schemes are not put in place as an alternative to a proper charging regime. Although I commend, and have seen, many of the voluntary schemes that have been mentioned today, most of them fall well short of the level of contribution that is required towards the costs of policing our town and city centres.
	I hope that we will be able to see the guidance that comes from the Home Office before the Bill completes its passage in this House, because that will be crucial in determining the threshold of the problem that one must have before one can initiate an action plan or have an alcohol disorder zone. If that threshold is set too high, the measures in the Bill will apply in too limited a number of circumstances.
	I want to turn briefly to the measures on knife crime.

Mark Oaten: I welcome many of the Bill's provisions. There is no doubt that violent crime is a serious problem in this country and it is not helpful to get into a statistical debate about whether it is marginally up or down. There is a responsibility on all hon. Members to ascertain whether we can do more to reduce the incidence of violent crime.
	Violent crime has many causes and the Bill tackles two of the key pillars behind the causes of violent crime: alcohol and access to weapons. Drugs is clearly another factor. However, the combination of access to weapons and alcohol is a main reason for the increase in violent crime. We shall decide whether to support the Bill—we are minded to support it—by the following yardsticks: whether it grossly infringes civil liberties, whether it creates too many offences and whether the provisions will be effective. We have concerns, which we shall raise in Committee, but our judgment on those three key tests is that the measure contains provisions that constitute a step in the right direction and deserve our support.
	I want to comment on the important matter of tackling the causes of crime. As the former Chairman of the Select Committee on Home Affairs, the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) said, the Bill tries to deal with some of our current problems and we need to do more to tackle the causes. Frankly, I am not prepared to take a lecture on that from the shadow Home Secretary, who has now left his place. Over the years, he has criticised my party when we have presented such arguments and been more than happy to portray us as soft on crime when we have argued for more creative solutions to try to tackle the causes of crime. I understand the need for the Conservative party to reinvent itself, but Conservative Members could at least acknowledge that some parties have argued strongly for such provisions for many years and been strongly criticised for doing that.
	Alcohol is an important factor. I am critical of the Government because they—and probably all political parties—have been chasing the problem, which has run ahead of us. I met members of a residents association in Winchester in my constituency this morning. They raised anxieties that will be familiar to all Members of Parliament. Those concerns apply not only to inner-city areas but to market towns in rural areas. We know the statistics: 25,000 admissions a year to accident and emergency departments and 50,000 violent offences are the result of people drinking too much, let alone—we have not discussed it in a Home Office debate—the implications for the health of our nation.
	It took a long time for the Government to respond. We had to wait many years for an alcohol strategy, which is regrettable because joining health and the consequences of crime in a fully thought-out strategy should have been done many years ago. Powers are in place but some have been difficult to enforce. We heard earlier that only 11 landlords a year have been prosecuted for allowing drunken or riotous behaviour on their premises. That raises two questions. First, is it simply a matter of ineffective policing? Secondly, and more worryingly given the Government's intentions in the Bill, are the prosecutions hard to achieve and is it hard for the police to identify the publican or premises responsible for allowing the serving of alcohol that led to such behaviour? If that is the case, it raises serious questions about the Government's proposals.
	We have long argued for the imposition of some sort of levy. We believe that it is wrong that many communities, especially in rural areas, experience the removal of police, so that, on Friday and Saturday nights, they are tied up in city centres. Local taxpayers ask why they should fund clearing up the mess for an industry that makes a great deal of money from alcohol. We therefore support the concept of imposing some levy or charge.
	We also want to support voluntary action by the industry, which is a sensible way forward. A couple of weeks ago, the industry made positive announcements, such as a willingness to end the practice of happy hours. However, that brings consequences. If part of the industry behaves well, wants to be responsible, signs up to join an association and is prepared to act by reducing happy hours, other parts of the industry that do not belong to the association will simply fill the void. Indeed, they could benefit financially because part of the sector was not holding happy hours. We cannot simply rely on the industry, because there will always be those who do not join industry forums and try to make a profit out of any action.
	In Committee, we need to establish clarity about who will be affected by the alcohol disorder zones and the related provisions. I take the Home Secretary's point about not believing what it is written in the Daily Express and other newspapers. However, if nightclubs can avoid the provisions by arguing that entertainment and dancing, not selling alcohol, are their main focus, it would cause disquiet because late-night entertainment in our city centres is often concentrated in them. We therefore need to be clear about who will be affected.
	I should also like more clarity about what the levy will be spent on. Simply giving it to the police might prove effective in reducing the cost to taxpayers of police on Friday and Saturday nights. However, let us also consider other forms of support for our night-time economy. Could we invest the levy in more CCTV? Could we consider having better trained doorkeepers for pubs and nightclubs? Could we use the money to contribute towards ensuring better late-night transport so that the problem of the cab queue outside the kebab shop where everybody waits can be resolved through creative schemes, such as that that operates near me in Salisbury, and provides publicly funded ways in which to get people back out of the city centre to their homes? We should consider using the levy not only for policing but for a wider range of matters so that we can help the night-time economy.
	What will happen if one lives in an alcohol disorder zone? What will be the impact on the price of people's property? What will be the impact on someone trying to sell their house when everyone in the community is saying, "Hang on a minute. No. 14, Burble Walk is in an alcohol disorder zone"? The measures could have a considerable impact on people living in the zones. They might welcome attempts to clear up the problems there, but we must also understand the implications for property prices.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his intervention, because that issue will certainly have to be considered in Committee, but I am concerned here about the presumption that everyone should be named and shamed. Rather than make that assumption, it would be better to judge in each case whether it would be more effective to name and shame someone.
	We support many of the measures in the Bill and would like to see them work, but would it not be sensible to pause in regard to the other changes in the licensing regime? Many of these measures will not be in place when the new 24-hour licensing regime is implemented. At the very least, the Government should delay that implementation until these measures are in force, because the two sets of provisions should work together. We seem to be running ahead with one before the relevant control mechanisms are in place.
	On gun crime, various points have been made about the offences outlined in the Bill. The number of offences relating to possessing a firearm has been reduced, which suggests that some progress has been made in tackling offences relating to how and when a person carries a firearm. However, there has also been a big increase—from 13,000 to 24,000—over the past few years in crimes involving guns. Many of the Government's proposals on airguns have our support. We have heard about the awful cases in Scotland and Darlington in which youngsters sadly lost their lives in incidents involving airguns and we support what the Government are trying to achieve, particularly in relation to the measures on shooting over a boundary.
	There is a muddle over raising the age at which a person can buy an airgun from 17 to 18 and over all the various ages involved in such regulations. I am not convinced by the evidence that changing the age from 17 to 18 will make an enormous difference. At the moment, we have a minimum age of 15 for shotguns, 17 for rifles and now 18 for airguns. That is three different ages for three different kinds of weapon. I hope that the Government will use this Bill as an opportunity to clarify these provisions, because they must be a nightmare to enforce. The fact that someone can purchase a shotgun, but not an airgun, at 15 suggests that we need to examine the age limits.
	There has been a large increase in cases involving replica guns, which cause enormous difficulties for the police. In some areas, the police estimate that half their armed police call-outs are a result of the sighting of an imitation firearm. That is a waste of police time, but, sadly, it is often the cause of a tragedy as well. The Government are right to want to deal with that and we support their wish to tackle two problems with replica guns: they are used because they look like real guns and they can be converted to carry live ammunition. The Home Office and the Home Secretary have said that it will be difficult, and it will, but we will help the Government over the definition in Committee. I thought that the Home Secretary made a good first attempt, but we need to test and probe the definition. We shall also need to take account of the point made by the last Home Affairs Committee. What should be done if someone in a dark alley has a wooden table leg hidden under a blanket? What should be done in similar instances? I believe that the police shot someone because he had what they thought was a gun, but was in fact a cigarette lighter. I am sure that such cases are not the majority, but they will need to be considered in Committee.
	I hope that the Government will deal with representations from the sport industry. Of course, the priority must be making our country safer, but we must listen to what that industry says. It is estimated that 4 million people use air weapons. Target shooting is an Olympic sport. Sensible discussions are needed and it is encouraging that the Home Secretary is engaging in some. I have spoken to representatives of the industry and they support much of the Bill, but they take issue with technical points involving the making of ammunition and the link with primers. Simple adjustments could be made that would probably allow them to go on making ammunition at home while meeting the Home Secretary's requirements. I hope that we can discuss such issues positively, along with airsoft weapons and re-enactment societies
	We support what the Government are trying to do about knives. They are certainly a problem in London. Apparently 361 incidents involving knives are recorded each week and, in January alone, there were 15 murders that have been attributed to stabbing. The importance of the issue should not be underestimated. The problem of children carrying knives was mentioned earlier. A quarter of the boys who were asked about it admitted having carried a weapon and nearly all of them specified a knife. Although some may have been young lads boasting, it is a frightening statistic.
	The Government have suggested solutions, but I am not convinced about all of them. I am particularly worried about the proposal to raise the age at which a knife can be legally purchased from 16 to 18. It will be hard to enforce. Already, half the shops break the law by selling knives to under-16s, according to spot checks carried about by the Trading Standards Institute. If that is happening now, how will it be possible to enforce the increase in the legal age? It is ridiculous that a couple can marry at 16 and put a kitchen knife on their wedding list. We must discuss silly situations like that in Committee.
	Will the Government also think again about sentences? The maximum sentence for carrying a knife in public is currently only two years, whereas for carrying a gun it is seven years. Both weapons are killers and there is a strong case for enabling judges to impose a similar maximum sentence for knife carrying. When I raised the matter in Home Office questions a couple of weeks ago, the Home Secretary said that he was prepared to think about it. I hope that we can press the Government again in Committee.
	I am instinctively uneasy about allowing school heads to carry out checks. I realise that there is a problem over guns and, particularly, knives in schools, and I know that, as the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen said, it is a key issue in exclusions. Indeed, 62 per cent. of children are excluded for carrying knives. But do we really want to give teachers and heads that responsibility? How exactly will it work? Which classes will they pick on? Do I feel comfortable about my child being at a school where she is automatically searched to establish whether she has a knife on her? We must ensure that checks are carried out sensitively and establish that teachers consider what they are doing appropriate. Again, the intention is right, but we must not "turn off" the teachers' unions.

Gerald Kaufman: The hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) complained that his party was depicted as being soft on crime. His party voted against the whole of the Anti- social Behaviour Act 2003, and members of his party on Manchester city council opposed it on the grounds that there was already too much antisocial behaviour legislation. The hon. Gentleman was worried about the Bill's effect on civil liberties. We are all champions of civil liberties, but my constituents value one civil liberty in particular: freedom from crime and from antisocial behaviour. If the Liberal Democrats had their way, we would not be dealing with that. My constituents in the Chapman street and Platt lane areas who are victims of antisocial behaviour will not be impressed by that nitpicking approach.
	Of course there are huge issues involving crime. As statistics demonstrate, no one could claim that the Government's war against crime is anywhere near wholly successful. The fact is, however, that the introduction of antisocial behaviour legislation—pioneered in Manchester and, indeed, in my constituency—is one of the most important advances in this regard that any Government have achieved. This Bill will deal with the sale of drink to minors, and that could have a huge impact. In Gorton, particularly in the Chapman street area, we have heard repeated complaints about retailers selling drink to minors. The police are acting, and are prosecuting in one case, but the Bill will strengthen the process.
	My constituents want to be able to live in peace. They want to be free from antisocial behaviour and from knife and gun crime. The Bill will help in that regard. My right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary, who pioneered antisocial behaviour legislation, has introduced to the dictionaries a new noun, asbo, and a new verb, to asbo. It is talked about in the streets. When the original legislation was introduced eight years ago, I told him, "The Bill looks good, but only when my constituents tell me that it is working will I be satisfied." My constituents, although they have many misgivings and want much more to be done, say that it is working. That is why they want more to be done. That is why they want action to be taken on houses that are being used illicitly as shabeens and for other purposes.
	This legislation can help on that. That is why people are delighted with the drink-banning elements of the Bill. It is not necessarily gangs that are causing the problems; collections of small numbers of young people are doing so. Let me make it clear that the overwhelming majority of young people would never dream of behaving badly, but a small minority can make life hell for ordinary people, who just want to live their lives in peace. This legislation will assist in giving them the increased tranquillity that they have the right to ask for.
	When I have constituents who are brave and decent enough to provide information to the police, I want the backing of the law and that is what this legislation increases. I pay tribute to Miss Irene Thorpe, who lives in Gorton and was given the MBE in the birthday honours list. She is a brave woman who has fought crime in the area. People are ready to do that provided they have legislative backing, and the Government will give them that backing.
	I pay tribute to the police in our area. Of course, their response is not always what my constituents want, but the police are implementing our legislation, which they welcome. When the police and the public work together—members of the public in Fallowfield, Gorton and elsewhere in my constituency do work together—it increases tranquility, makes life better, and increases property values, which the Liberal Democrat spokesman was complaining about. Where we have good community development, as we have in the Longsight area of my constituency, property prices are rising. My hon. Friend the Member for Stoke-on-Trent, South (Mr. Flello) is right. People know that, if there is a lot of crime in the area, designation of the zone helps to deal with that crime. It does not decrease property values; it increases them.
	I therefore say to Ministers that the measures that they have introduced, including this Bill, are making life better. The Liberal Democrat spokesman says that he is worried about naming and shaming people. A young woman in my constituency called Lorraine Ogden had ASBOs imposed on her. She went on offending. She was named on leaflets and indeed in the House. She has now said that her life has improved because she has been given the opportunity to improve her life and become a constructive citizen.
	In Gorton, we have had the "on the streets" project. Young offenders who have who had ASBOs imposed on them are now constructive citizens thanks to the wardens who created that system in their spare time. We want to make sure that innocent people are protected and that young people do not ruin the whole of their lives when they make mistakes. The provisions in the Bill on replica knives and binge drinking will be better for those people, because they will help them to stop behaving in an antisocial way. Heaven knows they will be far better for my constituents, who have had to put up with such behaviour all around them.
	Although the Bill deals with city centres, I hope that Ministers will consider extending it to district centres because, in a large city such as Manchester, not only the centre of the city but other parts are oppressed.
	The shadow Home Secretary talked about the statistics of crime. Let me give him the latest statistics for Greater Manchester. In the year to March, there were 42,000 fewer offences, an 11.5 per cent. reduction. There were 2,000 fewer violent crimes, and 67,752 offences were "brought to justice", an increase of 21.9 per cent. Domestic burglary was down by 10,616 offences, a fall of 28.1 per cent. The number of robberies was down 1,731, an 18.7 per cent. fall. Vehicle crime, which is one of the worst scourges that people had to put up with, fell by 9,280 offences, a reduction of 15.6 per cent. In April, the figures have improved still further.
	It is not paradise. Far too many people are putting up still with crime and with antisocial behaviour. The Bill is not a panacea, but heaven knows it will help my good, brave and decent constituents to come forward, to fight crime and to ensure that antisocial behaviour, gun crime and knife crime are reduced. That is what my constituents want. That is what they have the right to want. That is what they have the right to work for and to vote for, and that is what Ministers are helping them to do.

David Burrowes: Thank you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me the privilege of making my maiden speech today. I begin by declaring an interest as a solicitor. It is a welcome opportunity to speak in this debate, given that violent crime is of major concern to my constituents.
	First, as is customary, I pay tribute to my predecessor, Stephen Twigg. However, I do so less as a matter of custom, and more out of a personal respect for his record of hard work and service to an area we both grew up in and care deeply about. I am sure that his talents will continue to find a prominent place in public life—but with respect, I trust not in Enfield, Southgate.
	Before addressing the subject of the debate, I would like to describe the constituency that I now represent as Member of Parliament and the borough that I still represent as a councillor. It is long-established and distinguished, not least by its names. Enfield was literally the end field in the old county of Middlesex. Southgate was the "South gate" to the royal hunting forests.
	The words "Enfield, Southgate" are rarely uttered by political pundits without being preceded by the word "leafy". Indeed, the constituency is green, with tree-lined streets, an abundance of parks and farmland to boot. It is also suburban, in the best sense of the word, straddling the area between London and Hertfordshire. The green belt is the natural check on development and is cherished, particularly by its nearest neighbours in Hadley Wood. It needs, though, to be protected by the vigilant eyes of the active local residents associations and councillors.
	The constituency includes Cockfosters, which is where I grew up. Some will know of it simply as being the end of the Piccadilly line, others for its being the subject of adverts for alcohol beverages, and others for more cerebral reasons, since it is the home of Sir John Betjeman and Trent park.
	The park has been home to the Sassoon family, prisoners of war and Middlesex university. It is described, rightly, as the jewel in the crown of the constituency. Indeed, Trent park has royal links, being known by locals as the secret childhood playground of Her Majesty the Queen and Princess Margaret. Her Majesty was known to be partial to the chocolate cake cooked by the housekeeper, Mrs. Gubby. Sadly, the recipe has not stood the test of time, but Trent park certainly has. The university is due to submit plans to increase development in the park. I will oppose any plans that inhibit future generations from fully enjoying our wonderful country park.
	Another significant part of the constituency is Palmers Green, which is well known not only for being the backdrop to the last Harry Potter film but for Green lanes. The street boasts a diverse collection of shops, small firms, cafés and restaurants and a diverse community. Only this weekend, the active Green Lanes Business Association, championed so admirably by Costas Georgiou, celebrated the vibrancy of the area with a successful shopping festival.
	It is now traditional for the newly elected Member for Enfield, Southgate to include in his maiden speech the north circular road, which runs through the constituency. I should choose my words carefully, as I would not want to suggest that this clogged-up artery is the site of any significant movement. It does not so much run though as pass through, and usually its traffic does not even do that. Sir Anthony Berry, in his maiden speech some 40 years ago, and, after him, Michael Portillo, expressed hope that the road would be widened shortly.
	Even now, with the London Mayor's latest and inadequate road plans exhibiting in the constituency, there is an unmet need for a full widening scheme to properly tackle congestion. I sincerely hope that this will be the last maiden speech in which this issue needs to be raised.
	The constituency still retains its local heritage as a collection of villages; Southgate Green, Oakwood, Grange Park and Winchmore Hill. During the election campaign, it was clear that constituents felt an increasing sense of powerlessness over what happens in their community. They want their local voice to be louder on issues as varied as the proliferation of mobile phone masts and local policing. I wish to amply the voice of Enfield, Southgate. I believe that my role is not to rely on the powers of the state being used on their behalf, but to return those powers to the people who make the real difference.
	A true description of my constituency needs to include mention of some fine people who give the local community its strength. Enfield, Southgate is the proud home of the oldest woman in England, Judy Ingamells, who is 111 years old. One of the highlights of the campaign was to visit Mrs. Ingamells and experience what she says is the secret of her long life: a good sense of humour. Her motto for life will no doubt meet with approval from Labour Members; "Never look back, always look forward." Was she the originator of that motto? Mrs. Ingamells was born during the Administration of Lord Salisbury, has lived through the Administrations of many other great Prime Ministers and still lives in hope.
	Enfield, Southgate has many public servants, none more so than Malcolm Hudson, the head teacher of St. Paul's Church of England school in Winchmore Hill, who is retiring next month after 12 years of excellent leadership, backed up by years of distinguished service to education. I have come to appreciate the ethos of service that is displayed by many local people in education, health, transport and the police. The challenge is to provide the necessary freedom and opportunity for these people to flourish, and enabling local solutions rather than their being smothered by the heavy hand of government.
	The heart of the constituency is to be found in its voluntary and local associations. Two in particular come to mind, from whose services, respectively, 1,000 people each week benefit. The first is TAB centre plus, situated in Bowes ward in a pocket of deprivation. The local church, under the compassionate leadership of David James, has reached out to its neighbours and its premises provide the base for countless diverse community activities. The second is the well known Chicken Shed theatre company, which has its home in Southgate and has provided theatrical excellence throughout the last 30 years, working with and being accessible and available to a complete cross-section of young people. Both these organisations shine out as beacons in the local community. Neither benefits significantly from state funds, but their strength is the voluntary commitment of dedicated people.
	I am grateful to you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for allowing me to indulge in a tour of my constituency. Some hon. Members may question how the subject of today's debate could be relevant to leafy Enfield, Southgate. That question was shockingly answered nearly 12 months ago, when a local young man was brutally and senselessly murdered on his way home in Southgate Green. Sadly, this is not an isolated incident. Within a mile there have been other murders, serial rapes, stabbings, shootings, an armed robbery and an abduction.
	I believe that we will not significantly reduce violent crime until we have seriously tackled drug abuse. I saw for myself during the campaign how drug dealing was openly taking place on the residential streets of Enfield, Southgate. I have been to our local prison HMP Pentonville on many occasions; only, I hasten to add, in my professional capacity as a criminal solicitor. I am told by inmates that the prison is awash with drugs. It is apparently easier to obtain crack cocaine and heroin on the inside of prison than on the outside. This madness has to stop.
	Tackling drug abuse requires action on many different levels, and I await with interest the Government's review of cannabis classification and trust that good sense will return. For the last 11 years, most of my clients, sadly, have been drug addicts. I have seen the crucial role that strong families play in rehabilitation. When a drug addict is serious about rehabilitation, we need to be ready with a compassionate response. Effective treatment is required, as is practical support for the family.
	Reducing violent crime and making our streets safer is the priority for me as Member of Parliament for Enfield, Southgate. I am committed to work with the council, local people, the police, families and other agencies to combat crime and to turn back the worrying tide of drug abuse which is now lapping at our borders and threatening our children.

James Clappison: It is a pleasure to follow the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes), both of whom made excellent and accomplished speeches, including well-justified tributes to their predecessors. I am sure that the House looks forward to hearing them again in future and that my hon. Friend, who is a near neighbour, will fight for many of the same causes as MPs in neighbouring Hertfordshire.
	The Bill contains some worthwhile measures. There are new developments in some fields and incremental changes in existing legislation and, as the Home Secretary conceded, there is some closing of loopholes. However, taken as a whole, the Bill's title is rather flattering to its contents. Although the Home Secretary has been more restrained than some of his predecessors in introducing legislation, even he oversold this measure. That has been a problem throughout Labour's period in government. There has been overselling of legislation since the beginning, with the Crime and Disorder Act 1998. At that time, Ministers would have dismissed out of hand the criticism that in eight years' time we should need a Bill on violent crime reduction; yet after eight years of one piece of oversold legislation after another, we had the spectacle of the Prime Minister appearing on the steps of Downing street just after the general election telling us that he had been taken aback by what he had heard during the campaign. He described the problem of yobs in society and talked of the need to rebuild respect.
	Where the Bill assists in rebuilding respect and tackling the yob culture, it should be given support but we should never lose sight of the fact that we need to do much more. Nowhere is that more true than in the field of firearms legislation. One of the most worrying developments of the past eight years has been the rise in gun crime, which has doubled in the past five years alone. No interpretation of the statistics—no sleight of hand—can make them appear better. However we try to divide the categories of firearms legislation, as the Home Secretary was tentatively trying to do during his speech, we must keep in view the fact that there is a grave problem of crime involving the use of firearms. It is concentrated in certain communities and has blighted some inner-city areas. Many police officers believe that there is a risk that it will spread to many other communities.
	The provisions in part 2 will require careful examination. We need to ensure that they give as much protection to the public as possible while not losing sight of the desirability of safeguarding the interests of people who use weapons legitimately. The provisions must make some difference in practice, but above all we must remember that much more needs to be done, as the crisis is urgent.
	Similarly, much more remains to be done about alcohol-related disorder, although the problems are different. I commend much that was said by the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I had the pleasure of serving under his chairmanship of the Select Committee on Home Affairs when we conducted our inquiry into antisocial behaviour and considered the problem of alcohol-fuelled disorder. I was struck by the scale of the phenomenon of drinking in our cities and indeed our towns—we have heard from hon. Members about the problems in communities of various sizes.
	The chief constable of Nottingham gave evidence to the Committee and told us that on the previous Friday between 80,000 and 100,000 people had been in Nottingham city centre, policed by only about 40 officers. He also told us that the licence capacity in Nottingham was 61,000 people in 1997 but that by 2004 it had risen to 108,000.
	Clearly, the vast majority of those who go for an evening out in Nottingham are well behaved—those of us who remember the film "Saturday Night and Sunday Morning" will know that this has happened from time to time in the past in Nottingham—but the sheer scale of the phenomenon and the atmosphere that it engenders must be addressed, and there are many ways to do so, other than just by enforcement alone, although that has a part to play, and by the marginal improvements in enforcement that the Bill will produce.
	I wish to refer to one of the ways in which we could tackle the problem of bad behaviour, antisocial behaviour, the decline in respect and so on. There was some talk before the publication of the Bill that the Government would consider giving extra protection to public servants. I was disappointed to find nothing in the Bill about that, and I understand that there are no other such proposals—if the Minister has any, I shall be pleased to hear about them.
	Public servants are often in the front line of those who face violence and antisocial behaviour. In many cases, they are not treated with the respect that they deserve, and which they once received. I think particularly of the lack of respect shown to and, sometimes, the offences committed against teachers, doctors and nurses, those in the emergency services, those who serve the public in local and central Government and those who provide transport for the public in many different ways. All those people serve the public.
	I believe that there is a case—I hope that we will be able to explore it in Committee—for considering providing extra protection to those servants of the public in the form of more serious sentences for those who commit offences against public servants. That can be justified in theory. Such things should be treated as aggravated offences because all the people whom I describe serve the public, the nature of their jobs requires them to come into contact with the public and the service that they provide to the public is interfered with by the offences that are committed against them.
	Even those in the emergency services can sometimes be the victim of such offences. Since these ideas came to mind, during last week in my constituency, there has been a serious report of how such things can arise. The fire service was called to deal with a report of a neon sign malfunctioning outside a pizza parlour in Borehamwood at about half-past 10 in the evening. As a fireman examined the sign to find out whether it was safe, he was shot in the forehead by a pellet fired from an airgun. Another man was shot in the arm. Both men were taken to hospital. Thankfully, their injuries turned out not to be serious; but, as the police said afterwards, it was an incredibly reckless action.
	I do not know—no one can know at this stage—whether the measures in the Bill on air weapons would have covered that offence, related to it or helped in any way. It is too early to say; we do not know enough about the circumstances of the offence, but we clearly know that it was an attack against a public servant acting in his very important line of duty, protecting the public—someone who puts himself in the way of enough risk already, without being exposed to more by members of the public committing offences against him. Someone who goes out to work on behalf of the public should receive additional protection.
	Although some of the individual measures in the Bill may be worth while, I hope that during its consideration there will be an opportunity to consider giving much stronger protection to those who serve the public. Such measures would do far more to rebuild respect in our society, as well as doing justice to our public servants and giving them the protection that they deserve, than the measures that are currently in the Bill. Frankly, much more needs to be done by legislation and in many other ways. As we all know from our constituencies, and as the Prime Minister found out during the election campaign, there is a serious problem today with disorder, and we have not yet reached the right scale of dealing with that disorder to meet the needs of our constituents.

Sally Keeble: I join the tributes to the two hon. Members who made their maiden speeches. In particular, my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) paid an elegant tribute to Debra Shipley, and I am sure that many hon. Members who have been friends with Debra very much appreciated her words.
	One reason why I particularly welcome the Bill—I take issue with the hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) in this respect—is that it deals with the type of violent crime that my constituents experience most and that causes them most concern. Mercifully, most of them are not the victims of some of the very serious crimes, such as murder, but many of them experience crimes that result from alcohol, or if they do not experience them, it is because they are frightened by them and keep out of the town centre. Tackling alcohol-related crime will have a huge impact on the quality of life of many of my constituents and, indeed, on the environment that they enjoy. I want to talk about the measures on binge drinking, but I also want to ask my right hon. Friend the Minister whether she might say something about so-called happy slapping. The Bill contains a measure about mobile phones, but it is very restricted and I want to ask her some questions about that.
	I shall deal first with binge drinking. I warmly welcome the proposals on alcohol disorder zones. I have been convinced of the need for such zones since going out on the beat with the Northamptonshire police in the town centre a good number of years ago, when I saw huge pressures on the police as a result of the weak management of late-night drinking in the town centre. One night, there were 13 or 14 arrests, which is probably the equivalent of a small riot, and young people suffered serious injuries. Of course, the town centre becomes a complete no-go area for anyone over the age of 25, in a family group or not either very drunk or interested in getting drunk.
	The issues that have arisen in many of our town centres have been caused by weak approaches by the drinks industry, sometimes a lack of thought in town-centre design by the local authority—my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge referred to that in discussing her constituency—and, of course, the attitudes of young people to drink. Quite a few hon. Members mentioned the issue of fashion in crime. All those issues need to be tackled.
	On the drinks industry, a number of hon. Members talked about the state of the insides of venues and the fact that there is nothing to do other than stand up and drink. There is a lack of mix in entertainment and, in particular, a lack of food. Going around some of the venues that must make provision for eating as part of their licence, one commonly finds that the restaurant is shut for one reason or another. The hon. Member for Croydon, South (Richard Ottaway) talked about people standing and drinking. He struggled to think of what else they were doing and then said that they were enjoying themselves. In some venues, one wonders how much of what is going on is enjoyment and how much is just drinking for the sake of it.
	The management of young people by club staff is also a major issue. Young people go into such places, have as much alcohol poured down their throats as possible and are then chucked out on to the street, thereby creating an immediate problem that the police must deal with. It seems completely inappropriate that the police should have to manage that, which is one reason why alcohol disorder zones are so important.
	I take issue with hon. Members who have criticised the new licensing laws. Although I probably err on the side of wanting to see less drinking, the new licensing laws give local authorities more flexibility to think carefully about how they will stagger the opening and closing hours, thus raising issues that they have not considered before, such as the mix of business and how to provide licences.
	Roads and transport are also serious issues. I am pleased that the explanatory notes specifically mention of the use of income from such zones for transport schemes, which will, of course, also have a major impact on improving public safety, given that drink-driving is a fairly logical consequence of too much drinking if there is no other form of transport.
	Alcohol has an impact on crime and several hon. Members have talked about its impact on policing. It leads to increased costs if policing is funded by overtime, while police resources are drained if that is managed by routine rostering. One often wonders why burglars do not wait until Friday and Saturday nights to operate because they know that all the police are safely in the town centre dealing with alcohol-related problems.

Lynne Featherstone: I agree with the hon. Lady that there seems to be a British malaise. Additionally, people seem to have an inability to feel the cold when inebriated because they often go round in very little clothing at such times.
	I understand the idea behind alcohol disorder zones because Hornsey and Wood Green has good voluntary organisations called clubwatch and pubwatch that work together to create exactly what I think that the Government are after. I think that the Home Secretary misunderstood what I said before about this matter. I am worried that, although the law treats good and bad landlords differently, alcohol disorder zones will not do so. Although I agree with the principle that the polluter pays, the charge will be levied equally across the board. I wonder whether the local authority should be able to vary the levy according to the behaviour of individual landlords. Will the local authority be able to use the money for purposes such as cleansing, because males seem to have a technical problem when there is a lot of alcohol involved?
	I welcome the Government's proposals on imitation weapons, which are an abomination. I have served on the Metropolitan Police Authority for the past five years and visited SO19, where I saw a room containing a range of exact and precise imitations. No police officer should have to make a split-second decision about whether such weapons are genuine. The police have a training video that puts people in a crime scene so that they can make such a decision, but I would not know which way to choose, so I welcome the innovation.
	I questioned the Home Secretary earlier about why the Government propose to change the penalty for carrying an imitation firearm from six months to 12 months, because, unless that extra six months leads to a measurable difference, the proposal becomes gesture politics. Is that increase correct or should it be greater? The carrying of imitation weapons is serious, especially if they are used to frighten the public or commit robbery or crime, so we need to examine the matter more closely.
	There were three stabbings between 1 and 8 June in Hornsey and Wood Green and our neighbouring constituency of Tottenham. Although I understand the Government's desire to raise the minimum age at which knives can be sold, I am not sure that that is the cure. We must consider the parity between sentencing for knife and gun crime. I said in my recent maiden speech that guns and knives do not just blight lives, but end lives. There is a malaise among young people. Guns and knives are not simply fashion accessories, but status symbols. People in areas of London and parts of my constituency aspire to criminality. Although the Bill addresses the need to be tough on crime, what, to coin a phrase, about the causes?
	In summary, I admire the Government's attempt to send a cultural message to shift society, if that is what they are doing. Some of the great social shifts have been achieved as a result of legislation, such as the drink-driving laws and laws on wearing seat belts in cars. However, legislation was not enough on its own. It worked in conjunction with a huge effort on campaigning and advertising. I am old enough to remember "Clunk-click every trip." It is unacceptable to get drunk in a pub and step into a car without people looking askance and I feel loose if I drive off without my seat belt on because using it is embedded in my behaviour.
	If the Government are sending a message that people drinking themselves into oblivion is wrong, there has to be an enormous campaign to back that up. One of the difficulties that they wander into is that too many laws and too many changes from what is a civil law to a criminal law mean that there are too many messages. They have to be clear, specific, targeted and focused on how they change society for the better. We are talking abut twin evils. They need addressing, which the Government are doing.
	Along with the Tory and Labour parties, I co-hosted a public discussion with the author Michael Jacobson, who has written a book on downsizing prisons. The basic thesis is that, as we reduce the prison population by finding other mechanisms for dealing with crime—rehabilitation, justice panels and so on—the corresponding effect is that crime drops, which means that the prison population drops again. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) said that the Liberal Democrats were against the Anti-social Behaviour Bill. At the discussion, both Tory and Labour Members said how much we needed to deal with the causes of crime. We were attacked for saying that the best way to treat a woman for a first offence of shoplifting was not to put her in prison, but that is not being soft on crime.
	The Bill will only reduce the number of incidents temporarily if we do not deal with the causes. We are not soft on crime. We are tough on crime, but we are also interested in helping people. Tougher laws, more laws and longer sentences are a failure of the administration of justice. It is a cry for help from the people whom we represent to do more than just create additional laws.

Richard Burden: Every hon. Member has said that tackling violent crime and intimidatory antisocial behaviour is a priority for our constituents. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) was right when he said that people want to know not just that we are concerned about such things, but what we are going to do about them. The Bill is an important step along the road in tackling alcohol-related crime and antisocial behaviour.
	I want to address part 2. The link between replica firearms and violent crime is clear. The statistics have been mentioned and are widely available. We must tackle that problem and do something about replica firearms. Although the Bill will probably contribute to that, I share some of the concerns expressed by my right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham). I hope that the Committee will consider the problems of definition, because they could give us problems. It is only right that the Bill covers possible exemptions, but jumping too far one way will drive a coach and horses through our legislation while jumping too far the other way will outlaw collectors' items. We need to consider that in detail.
	I want to concentrate on selling guns and knives. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green made a good point about internet sales. I have concerns about holes in existing legislation and its implementation as it relates to existing retail outlets. According to the Knives Act 1997,
	"A person is guilty of an offence if he markets a knife in a way which . . . indicates, or suggests, that it is suitable for combat; or . . . is otherwise likely to stimulate or encourage violent behaviour involving the use of the knife as a weapon."
	That is relatively clear. Looking at some of the retail outlets in my constituency and other places, however, I find it difficult to relate what is on sale, and how it is marketed and advertised, to that legislation.
	A market stall in my constituency is called Guns and Knives, and it is a bit like the ad that says, "It does what it says on the tin", because it has an array of everything from crossbows to ninja knives, to all kinds of blades and BB guns. Today it advertised an Uzi sub-machine gun at cut price, although I do not know whether it was a replica or BB gun. I am not suggesting that the retailer is breaking the law or selling knives to children. The evidence is that he is not. It is also true to say that he has signs up saying, "For collectors' use only".
	However, residents are concerned about how the products are marketed and the fact that they are in their face when they walk into the stall. In fact, they are so concerned that when the local Labour party organised a petition a month or two ago on the marketing of guns and knives in the open, people queued up to sign it. There was no doubt about the concern. I pay tribute to my constituent, Lucy Seymor-Smith, who brought the petition together and presented it to the local council, which is considering it. I am pleased to say that the local paper, the Birmingham Evening Mail, has taken up the problem and did a fairly major piece on the stall. It has raised some of the concerns felt by my constituents. The article brought out the suggestion that a blade from the stall was used in a violent incident not far from the constituency.
	There is a problem with how knives are marketed. Bearing in mind what the 1997 Act says about blades not being marketed in a way that suggests they are used for combat, it is significant that another shop in my constituency is called Combat. It sells things to do with legitimate martial arts—kendo and forms of unarmed martial arts—but there are also various forms weapons or imitation weapons in the window. I am not suggesting that the trader does not draw a distinction between selling equipment for kendo and having a Samurai sword purely for ceremonial purposes. Perhaps he does. If we are trying to counter the culture of violence, we need to be a lot firmer and more focused on breaking the link between legitimate martial arts and the glorification of violence that is all too often associated with the marketing of imitation guns, blades, crossbows and so on.
	Where blades are concerned, it is not just a case of new legislation; the issue is one of enforcement. However, retailers have a responsibility not simply to put up a sign saying "For collectors' use only" and then to market and advertise the items in a way that runs counter to the message that that sign gives. If they advertised their goods on television or in the press, they would be covered by an Advertising Standards Authority code of practice that would severely limit the way in which they did so. Yes, it is a system of self-regulation, but there are ASA rules. However, a retailer selling from a market stall or a shop can put what they want, how they want it, in their shop window as long as they can point to their sign saying "For collectors' use only". They are under little obligation to adopt reasonable standards and to market their items in a way that indicates that they are for collectors' use, rather than in a way that glorifies violence. There is a link between the way in which such items are marketed and the culture of violence that can lead to people seeing guns or knives as attractive fashion accessories and, further down the line, to the committing of violent crimes.
	As well as giving the Bill its Second Reading and examining it in detail in Committee, I ask the House to think about how we can be more proactive about ensuring that the provisions of existing law—in particular the Knives Act—are enforced. Ministers should also consider negotiating and drawing up with the retail trade a code of practice similar to the ones relating to print and electronic media, so that there is some oomph behind the legislation. In that way, police and trading standards officers will have an extra tool to use when they visit retail premises. We must have some means of ensuring that marketing to the legitimate collector—the person who wants to have a ceremonial dagger on their wall, for example—is not used as a cover for the glorification of violence and weapons.

Diane Abbott: I am grateful for the opportunity to speak in this important debate. I should like to focus on the issue of gun crime and the steps in the Bill that, I hope, will help us to tackle that scourge. As I said in an intervention, gun crime casts a peculiar shadow over communities such as mine in Hackney. I remind the House that when those of us who live in the inner city talk about gun crime we are talking about something very different from the criminal use of guns down the ages. Guns have always been used in crime, including, for example, the great train robbery. In the past decade in inner-city Hackney, however, I have witnessed the growth of a specific gun culture, in which young men do not feel properly dressed for a night out unless they are tooled up.
	People may talk about guns as replicas or collectors' items, but individuals who want guns as ornaments on their dining-room table or on their walls are feeding the gun culture. Another feature of Hackney's gun culture is the random nature of shootings. Once, unless people were armed robbers or security guards, they were unlikely ever to find themselves face-to-face with a gun, but in my constituency there have been drive-by shootings in which people were killed while waiting at a bus stop. At a party, people have been killed by a bullet from a gun fired in another room that passed through the wall. In the past two weeks, people were shot up in a Turkish restaurant in Dalston by people travelling past on a motorbike. Imagine the terror experienced by people in a restaurant, at a bus stop or walking up the street when they see two guys go past on a motorbike spraying bullets.
	The random nature of gun crime in the city and its international nature give Hackney's gun culture a specific character. Disputes about drugs and payment may originate in Mountain View, Kingston in Jamaica but they are resolved on the streets of Dalston in Hackney. Just as business and labour have gone global, so has crime. Hackney is involved in the traffic of criminals between New York, London, Jamaica and elsewhere. There is therefore a distinct and unnerving phenomenon in an area where high-value housing lies cheek by jowl with what is commonly known as murder mile. For many years, I have urged Ministers to take tough action on imitation firearms. In Hackney, such firearms are not ornaments like vases or a piece of china. They are one step away from real firearms. The majority of what are misleadingly described as Yardie-type shootings in London—most of those involved do not come from Jamaica or have not travelled there—are perpetrated with activated imitation firearms. That is why I take a tougher line than colleagues who regard such guns merely as ornaments.
	The problem is not just a media scare. The publication of annual crime figures show that gun crime has risen by 10 per cent. and the use of imitation weapons by 66 per cent. Last Monday, a 22-year-old was shot in Dalston, and he is still in hospital. In the past 10 days, a 20-year-old who was trying to stop a friend being beaten up was shot in the face. As I said, bullets were sprayed into a Turkish restaurant by a gunman on a motorcycle in Dalston. Gun crime is a tragedy not just for the people who are shot but for their family and the community. What can it be like to be a mother who says goodbye to her son in the morning or the afternoon only to receive a call from the police saying he has been shot and may be dying?
	I welcome the Government's action, including tougher sentences for people carrying imitation firearms. I particularly welcome the creation of a new offence for using other people to hide and carry guns or knives. For many years in Hackney, 11, 12 or 13-year-old children have been used to keep guns, because the owners know that when those children are discovered they will not receive the sentences given to adults. The Bill's clear intention to bear down on the carrying, sale and use of imitation fire arms is welcome, and my constituents will be grateful that the Government are listening.
	We must make it clear, however, that the glorification of guns and firearms is not unique to youth culture or even black youth culture. Recently, promotions for the film "Mr. & Mrs. Smith" featured the gimmick of a glamorous couple—Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie—handling guns. Sometimes people assume that gun culture is specific to inner-city areas such as my constituency, but guns have been glorified in American culture since the days of Wyatt Earp. I welcome the measures in the Bill on imitation weapons, for which the police have been calling for many years. I do not want those measures to be watered down by people who consider such guns to be merely ornaments.
	Measures in the Bill, however, will not wipe out the menace of gun crime in the inner city. We need to look at a number of underlying issues, including education. I have spoken many times in the House about the underachievement of black boys. I am not claiming that every child who underachieves at school joins a criminal subculture and goes on to become involved in firearms, but there is a direct link between criminality, whatever one's colour, and underachievement. If we are serious about beating gun culture in the Hackneys and Harlesdens of our country we must look at educational underachievement and the need to create routes into employment. Someone can stand in the middle of Dalston in my constituency a few hundred yards from the scene of various shooting incidents and see the towers of the City of London, including the gherkin and the NatWest tower. For most of my young male constituents, however, those towers might as well be on the other side of the world, so remote is their opportunity to find a job in the City, one of the biggest employers in Europe.
	We must therefore look at education and routes into employment for my constituents. We must also look at witness protection. In Hackney—I do not know about areas outside the M25—by and large the identity of individuals carrying out the shootings is not a mystery. The gangs and perpetrators are well known within their communities. The problem is that people are terrified to come forward because we still do not have adequate witness protection. If there is a big gangland investigation, people can have their identity changed or whatever, but I have spoken to middle-aged ladies who have gone to court and been witnesses in the trials of gun criminals and have had to move two or three times to get away from the fear of retribution. Witness protection is extremely important.
	We also need to look at better control of the illegal importation of weapons and at the issues that colleagues have raised in relation to the sale of weapons on the internet. Of course we do not have anything like the level of gun crime that exists in the United States, and of course only a fraction of our young people are involved in the kind of gun culture that I described, yet that has cast a terrible shadow over my constituents because of its random, international and cultural nature. I am glad that in the Bill the Government are taking important steps towards dealing finally with the menace of gun crime in our inner-city communities.

Stephen Crabb: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for calling me to participate in this important debate. First, I want to put on record my congratulations to the hon. Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and to my hon. Friend the Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) on their excellent maiden speeches, which were well delivered and enjoyable to listen to.
	While broadly welcoming the Bill as a whole, I am worried that there is an over-reliance on control measures, which do little to tackle the deep-seated cultural challenge of alcohol abuse among young people. As a nation, we work hard and play hard and, as a result, our night-time economy is booming. We have heard much in this afternoon's debate about the vast profits being made by some bars and clubs, but let us not forget the number of jobs created by those establishments, or that this is a legitimate business sector. The question was raised earlier how anyone could possibly enjoy themselves at these pubs and clubs, but with all due respect to the hon. Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble), that is not a relevant question for the House. The fact remains that in almost every town centre on any Friday or Saturday night throughout the year, crowds of loud excited young people can be seen having a good time enjoying each other's company.
	The dark side, however, that merges so seamlessly with the positive side is the nuisance caused to residents by noise; the violence that sees young men being kicked unconscious in street fights; abusive men who go home drunk and punch their wives or girlfriends; and injuries sustained by drunk people through pranks and accidents. It includes vandalism and criminal damage; shop windows broken; urine and vomit in doorways; and the fear and intimidation that so easily engulfs a town centre when, to use the popular phrase, "trouble kicks off".
	Unfortunately, the Government's response has been to pursue a long list of tough-sounding, headline-grabbing proposals intended to show that something is being done. That is why, as well as CCTV, we have ASBOs, a proposal to march drunken yobs to cashpoints, fixed penalty notices, drink banning orders, dispersal orders, alcohol disorder zones and—the latest, according to one of the broadsheets yesterday—the idea of deploying the Army on the streets this summer. It is all about control, control, control—and I do not believe that it will work. We will not tackle the binge drink culture in this country by imposing martial law on our town centres at night.
	Before throwing more legislation on the statute book, should we not instead be looking into renewed enforcement of existing laws? During the numerous nights that I have spent out with my local police force, not one police officer has told me that there were not enough sanctions available to enable them to tackle alcohol-related disorder. Without revisiting the arguments of the general election, I believe that we need an increase in police numbers and a renewed vigour in using legislation that is already in place.
	For example, local police officers told me directly that they simply do not have the manpower to start arresting everyone who is drunk and disorderly at the weekend. The time and labour required to process any such arrests would divert vital resources away from what they regard as the hotspots at the worst possible time in the evening. That may be one of the principal reasons behind the long-term fall in convictions for drunk and disorderly behaviour across the country. As one officer told me during a recent night shift spent monitoring Haverfordwest town centre at pub closing time, the best that current resources allow is for the police to "keep the lid" on the problem of binge drink disorder. Until we get to grips with the serious cultural issues that lie behind that behaviour, we will just carry on as a society throwing ever larger sums of money at enforcement and control just to keep a lid on it.
	The problem in this country stems from the fact that we have a culture where alcohol abuse is tolerated. In fact, in so many areas of popular culture, drinking—even drunkenness—is celebrated and joked about. That is one of the reasons why we are losing the war on alcohol abuse among young people. The fact is—so many studies have confirmed it—that youngsters are being exposed to alcohol at an ever younger age and are drinking more in terms of units and more frequently.
	According to Alcohol Concern, by the age of 13, young people who drink alcohol already outnumber those who do not. That comes as no surprise in view of the findings of Professor Paul Willner of the university of Wales, Swansea. His research showed that 16-year-old boys and girls as young as 13 now have little difficulty in buying alcohol from a variety of vendors. The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd) was right to raise the issue of the sale of alcohol to minors. I await an answer to my written question on conviction rates for off-licences and stores that sell alcohol to young people.
	The World Health Organisation's European charter on alcohol, to which the UK is a signatory, states:
	"All children and adolescents have the right to grow up in an environment protected from the negative consequences of alcohol consumption and, to the extent possible, from the promotion of alcoholic beverages."
	I should welcome the Minister's thoughts on how well she believes the Government are discharging their responsibilities under that charter.
	I hope that I shall be proved wrong, but part 1 seems to provide nothing more than a sticking plaster over our deep-seated problems of youth alcohol abuse. We await further details and further delivery of the Government's alcohol harm reduction strategy, and I look forward to more proposals in the coming months to add to the Bill's provisions.

Hazel Blears: We have had an excellent debate with contributions from 27 hon. Members, which tells us that the subject is popular and that it resonates in hon. Members' constituencies.
	I join other hon. Members in congratulating my hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge (Lynda Waltho) and the hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate (Mr. Burrowes) on their excellent maiden speeches. My hon. Friend the Member for Stourbridge discussed her trips out with local police officers and neighbourhood watch—Mr. Timmins from Stourbridge will remain in my heart. She also paid tribute to her predecessor, Debra Shipley, whose work, particularly in relation to children, will be remembered by many hon. Members on both sides of the House. My hon. Friend said that Stourbridge has seized her heart; she seized our hearts tonight, and I am sure that we will hear more from her.
	The hon. Member for Enfield, Southgate paid a generous tribute to his predecessor, Stephen Twigg, for whom we all have the greatest respect for his contribution to his community, and I am sure that the hon. Gentleman will make a similar contribution.
	I am delighted that hon. Members from both sides of the House support many of the provisions in the Bill. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden (David Davis) welcomed drinking banning orders, the offences concerning concealed weapons and the work on imitation firearms. Along with a number of hon. Members, he raised the issue of the causes of crime. I gently remind him that the state of this country's economy when 3 million people were unemployed was a major contributor to some of the problems experienced by our poorest communities. We have heard a lot tonight from Conservative Members about the poorest communities, but I ask them not to have collective amnesia and to remember our economy's current success.
	My right hon. Friend the Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr. Denham) raised some important points. He is a particular champion of trying to get the hospitality industry to contribute to the extra costs of policing, and I have no doubt that we will discuss some of the issues that he raised about definitions in Committee.
	I welcome the broad support of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten) for many of the provisions in the Bill. He discussed how we can encourage voluntary activity. We want to see voluntary action, which is currently happening in a number of areas, on binge drinking in addition to the clear-cut alcohol disorder zones. He is right to raise the issue of sales on the internet, and we will continue to work on that matter over the summer and to debate it in Committee.
	I am delighted that my right hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Gorton (Sir Gerald Kaufman) raised the work that has been done in Manchester on tackling the whole range of antisocial behaviour. I commend the police and others in Manchester, who are pioneers in being on the side of the decent people in their community. On those issues, local people support action against the minority and the protection of the rights of the majority.
	The hon. Member for Hertsmere (Mr. Clappison) raised the important issue of extra protection for those who serve the public. We have not gone down the path of creating a separate criminal offence, but we are determined that attacking people who serve the public will be an aggravating factor, and we want to work on that matter with the Sentencing Guidelines Council. The definition, "public service worker" is very narrow, because some people who work in the private sector actually serve the public. I think that the question should be, "Is someone serving the public?", rather than focusing on their particular employment.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Northampton, North (Ms Keeble) raised some important issues. I was delighted to visit her during the election. I know that she regularly goes out with her police service. She is right to mention planning in town centres. We need a wider mix of premises—not just premises targeted at 18 to 25-year-olds—so that perhaps some of us older people will feel comfortable in our town centres as well. Happy slapping can be dealt with under existing offences about actual bodily harm, but my hon. Friend is right to say that it is a worrying phenomenon and we have to take it seriously.
	I welcome the general support of the hon. Member for Hornsey and Wood Green (Lynne Featherstone) for the proposals. She talked about differentiating between good and bad licensees. I am sure that she knows that we have been working on an accreditation scheme like Manchester's best bar none scheme whereby people get credit, endorsement and acknowledgement for running their premises in a proper way. We will look carefully into whether we can incorporate that into the Bill.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Richard Burden) referred to the way in which knives and guns are marketed. Many Members will have seen such information in leaflets and on the internet. It is already an offence to market knives in a way that could encourage combat. I share my hon. Friend's concern about whether that is being enforced properly and ensuring that we crack down on it. Some of the advertisements that I have seen are of great concern. I am pleased that he raised the issue.
	The hon. Member for South-West Hertfordshire (Mr. Gauke) said that we have a modest set of proposals none of which he has any real objection to. That is fairly grudging support, but I welcome it none the less. He talked about the need for more police. He is relatively new to the House, but I am sure that he knows that under Labour we have an extra 13,000 police officers while under the Tories we had 1,100 fewer. I am sure that he will find that figure imprinted on his brain as we have these debates on a regular basis.
	I was delighted to hear the contribution by my hon. Friend the Member for Hackney, North and Stoke Newington (Ms Abbott). She has an excellent record on campaigning against imitation weapons, and I am pleased that we have been able to deal with that in the Bill.
	The hon. Member for Meirionnydd Nant Conwy (Mr. Llwyd)—I have got better at saying that as time has gone on—raised the important issue of enforcing our existing law. I am pleased to say that the number of offences that are being enforced has gone up in the past year to 18 months. We have had some massive enforcement campaigns, and we are right to press the police to enforce. The hon. Gentleman mentioned the marketing of alcopops. The issue of advertising and celebrities will be important in taking this forward.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Warrington, North (Helen Jones) raised an issue that she has raised on several occasions—ensuring that penalties are right for people acquiring alcohol that is then passed on to young people. As she will know, it is now an offence as we have made it a fixed-penalty notice. However, we will continue to press forward in that respect.
	The hon. Member for Rugby and Kenilworth (Jeremy Wright) talked about resources for policing. He will know—or if he does not now, he will over the next few months—that under this Government we have had a 30 per cent. increase in funding for police officers; that is a 21 per cent. real-terms increase after inflation.
	My hon. Friend the Member for Barnsley, East and Mexborough (Jeff Ennis) has had a tremendous record on campaigning on airguns for several years now; I pay tribute to him for that. We have put measures in the Bill, and we are in discussions, particularly with Scottish Ministers, about whether there is further work that we can do. My hon. Friend has made a genuine and significant contribution to work in this area.
	I was delighted to visit my hon. Friend the Member for North Durham (Mr. Jones) just a few months ago. At last we have the measures on mobile phone reprogramming that will help to crack down on mobile phone theft.
	The hon. Member for South-West Norfolk (Mr. Fraser) asked about fixed-penalty notices. About 100,000 have been issued of which 75 per cent. have been paid. They are a great success. They save the police a huge amount of time in terms of bureaucracy and paperwork and have been welcomed enormously.
	I was pleased to meet my hon. Friend the Member for Stafford (Mr. Kidney), as well as the licensee of the Swan hotel, during the general election. I did not have the pleasure of going to Zanzibar, but perhaps I might be able to visit him there on a future occasion. He mentioned pubwatch schemes, which are very important in tackling these issues. There is an excellent pubwatch scheme in Workington, where the police are working tremendously hard with the local council in making a difference.
	The hon. Member for Clwyd, West (Mr. Jones) told us about some very worrying events that had taken place in his constituency, particularly the three fatal stabbings. The measures on knives in the Bill build on some pretty serious legislation that we already have in place. We have banned 19 different kinds of bladed weapons. We recently banned stealth knives, flick knives having been banned for a long time.
	I was pleased to visit the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Wirral, West (Stephen Hesford) during the election campaign. I saw at first hand the reassurance that the police provide on the ground and the fact that local people feel much better for it. He asked us to look again at air weapons and we will continue to take the matter forward.
	On the speech of the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins), I want to put paid now to the idea that thousands of children are carrying knives in our schools. That is not true. Only a tiny minority carry knives but we want to ensure that we protect the majority of young people who could be put at risk.
	I pay tribute to my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Hall Green (Steve McCabe) for his work, especially on highlighting the problems with internet sales of knives and guns. He was working on that before many others and he has helped to push our policy making on the subject. I reassure him that we do not want alcohol disorder zones to undermine in any way the excellent regeneration projects throughout the country. They will ensure that we get a grip on the problem and help our regeneration to have even more impact.
	I want to set the debate in a little context. Although we have said a great deal about violent crime tonight, it is in the context of a 30 per cent. reduction in crime in the past eight years. There are 500,000 fewer people getting burgled than under the previous Conservative Government. Vehicle crime is down by 30 per cent. and robbery is down by 25 per cent. from its peak four years ago. All that has been tackled by direct, focused action from the police, using intelligence, targeting the hot spots and the prolific and priority offenders—very smart policing. The police are working ever closer with their partners, especially in local government. They work together to protect elderly people, provide better street lighting and more CCTV.
	However, it is true that crime trends are changing. We are moving from acquisitive crime—burglary and robbery—to more crime that revolves around behaviour, involving drink, drugs and violence. That is the reason for the Bill.
	The measure will help the police and local authorities. It will give them the powers that they need to make another step change in the fight against crime. The Government are determined to keep ahead of the criminals and ensure that we are on the side of the decent, law-abiding majority, especially the decent young people who are often the victims of antisocial behaviour and violent crime. As well as giving the police the powers to do the job, we are trying hard to do one of the most difficult things that Government ever have to do: try to change people's behaviour. We want people to think twice and know that it is simply not worth it to carry on behaving violently towards others.
	We want people to realise that it is not cool to carry a gun and to know that there are ways to resolve conflict other than using knives or being violent. That is why we are working with the Department for Education and Skills, why we have projects such as the Connected Fund and why we are working with Mothers Against Guns. The educational and preventive work is important to us because we are trying to change behaviour. It is difficult but we managed it on drink-driving and wearing seat belts. Some of those measures were fought tooth and nail—people said that they would never work. I therefore genuinely believe that we can help to change behaviour.
	We have witnessed two of the best examples of changing behaviour in the Chamber today. I listened with increasing fascination to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden and the hon. Member for Winchester. The right hon. Member for Haltemprice and Howden used to have a reputation as the hammer of the right but tonight, we saw caring, compassionate Conservatism. He talked about the causes of crime and championing the poor. Tonight was a revelation to me. I am not sure to which audience he is trying to appeal—perhaps it is not Labour Members but has more to do with the hon. Gentlemen who are sitting behind him. However, we have seen a tremendous change in the right hon. Gentleman's behaviour.
	We have also witnessed behavioural change in the hon. Member for Winchester. He used to be the voice of civil liberties and the defender of individuals' rights, but today he was talking tough on crime. We heard him supporting our measures to tackle violent crime. We heard his comments on drinking banning orders, alcohol disorder zones and good behaviour.
	I do not want the waste of life that happens through knife attacks, gun crime and alcohol. The Bill will help us to tackle that and I welcome hon. Members' contributions.
	Question put and agreed to.
	Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Richard Taylor: Thank you, Madam Deputy Speaker, for allowing me this opportunity to speak on this incredibly important and wide subject. It has nothing to do with my own constituency in particular, but I believe that it is of interest to everyone in the House. I welcome the new Minister to his position. I shall give him a fairly easy run, as I fear that I shall overstep my allocated time because I have so much to say. Also, there will not be many questions for him to answer because I want to make my points to a much wider forum than just the small number of Members who remain in the House.
	After being re-elected as an independent Member, my thoughts turned to the previous independent who managed to sit through more than one term. He was, of course, A. P. Herbert, the hon. Member for Oxford University. In reading his book, "Independent Member", I noticed many parallels and many things on which I agree with him, and I should like to give the House a brief quote from it. During the terrible days of Munich, he wrote:
	"I have even thought that, on great occasions where the parties were furiously raging together, the votes of Independents (cast with, of course, more conscience) might be as straws in the wind and show the party leaders which way the pure air of free opinion blows. Some horrid pride here, no doubt: but at least no 'levity' or lack of conscience."
	I should like to think that, because I speak as an independent, without any party axe to grind, my comments will be taken in the spirit of helpfulness in which they are made, although there are some fairly marked warnings coming up.
	I cannot speak without paying tribute to the undoubted improvements that have occurred in the NHS. I am thinking particularly of cancer and cardiac care, and of the public health White Paper, which brings to the fore such subjects as obesity and sexual health. I pay tribute to the formation of the Healthcare Commission, and to the move away from star ratings and targets towards standards, which will be less prescriptive and allow managers, in particular, to spend less time thinking about targets and more about what happens to the patient. I congratulate the Government on the institution of patients forums and overview and scrutiny committees, on the independent reconfiguration panel and on the paper, "Keeping the NHS local".
	I want to dwell on some of the potential risks to further progress. They include the risk of alienating staff and patients by implementing major changes that have not been properly thought through and whose long-term consequences have not really been considered. In a recent edition of the British Journal of Health Care Management, Professor Alan Maynard of York university begins his article, which was written just before the general election and is entitled "Heading for the cliff edge?", in this way:
	"The Labour Government—if re-elected—seems intent on maintaining its evidence-free policies that have a potential to destabilise the NHS."
	That is a salutary warning.
	I want to talk about three subjects: choice, continuity of care and communication, and increasing use of the market and the private sector. No one is in any doubt that what patients want is prompt access to quality care as near home as is possible, so no one is against choice. Before the market, there was infinite choice in terms of referral, at least for doctors. Whether the doctors passed the choice on to all their patients, I am not entirely sure, but I know that some did. Since the market, choice has been severely constrained by contracts. Even when I retired, everyone working in the health service knew of the tremendous problems with extra-contractual referrals, which were dreadfully difficult to organise.
	The Government's emphasis on choice is welcome, but I want to say something about "choose and book". Along with other members of the Health Committee, I visited Richmond house to see a mock-up demonstration of how it would work. I could not help thinking back to the time when my hospital organised a mock-up demonstration of a brand-new computer system that would revolutionise monitoring in our intensive care unit. The model worked beautifully. We bought it and plugged it in, but it did not work on patients and we had to ask for our money back. I am terribly worried that these models that look so marvellous may not work as well as promised.
	"Choose and book" has been very badly sold to the professions. The use of that method for 50 per cent. of GP referrals by October is out of the question. Will the Government at least agree to a delay? There is no urgency—there are at least four years in which they can get things right.
	This is the ideal subject for a pilot trial. I have spoken to my local primary care trust. It knows that most practices resist the idea, but it tells me that at least five practices in my county, Worcestershire, would be willing to undergo pilot trials. There would have to be a firm set of questions to answer, there would have to be a time scale and the trials would have to be allowed to finish. Many NHS trials in the past have been scrapped before they were finished. Local hospitals would need time in which to get their act together so that they could actively compete. The Government must help local hospitals to focus their resources in local services.
	My second warning relates to continuity of care and communication. Most local patient complaints—I receive a good many from further afield, although I try not to deal with them when they come from other Members' constituents—are based on a lack of communication between clinical staff and patients and their families, or between hospital staff and GPs. Those difficulties have become worse and worse since the introduction of the shift system. The position is described graphically in a recent article in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine headed, "A post-take ward round", by the professor of medicine at University college London. It states:
	"Our round starts on the coronary care unit and the group consists of a night team, a day team, some of yesterday's team and a cardiologist . . . The number of doctors on the round has increased but the chances of any one doctor knowing the full course of the patient from admission from post-take round is virtually nil. On the other hand, the junior doctors come into contact with many different consultants and the consultants get to know most of the junior staff. An advance? Not in terms of continuity of care or team spirit, but perhaps as we get used to working in shifts these problems will resolve."
	That worries me, because the spin-off for the patient is that, time and again, they do not know who they are under and whom to ask, and they leave with unanswered questions.
	I hope that the Healthcare Commission will pick up on that matter in its complaints handling and deal with it. Is slavish following of the European working-time directive correct? Trainees are beginning to speak out against the current scheme. I shall give a few useful quotes from trainees themselves in a recent edition of Hospital Doctor. A registrar in general medicine said:
	"There is no continuity of care any more. You might meet a patient at 6 pm, go home at 9 pm and don't follow them through, which affects training, as you miss out on seeing the whole spectrum of complications."
	A specialist registrar in general surgery said:
	"My training is affected as I am doing about 20 per cent. less elective surgery and I'd say up to 80 per cent. of my colleagues would support going back to the old style of on-call."
	A specialist registrar in gastroenterology said:
	"I have calculated I've lost 25 per cent. of endoscopy experience, do 25 per cent. fewer ward rounds and get to 30 per cent. fewer clinics. The only reason I feel confident is because I had a couple of years under the old system."
	A week or two later, the leader writer of Hospital Doctor wrote:
	"Most of the trainees I talk to still see medicine as their vocation and are prepared to balance personal demands with improved training and service delivery, even if that means a few hours more work. But you don't hear that important voice in the working time debate, which is a shame, because it just might help make it workable."
	There is a feeling at the moment that we can revolt in some ways against Europe. I would very much like to see a revolt against the European working time directive and some compromise that made it a little more workable.
	I move on to my third warning, which is the most important. It is about the rapid extension of the NHS market and the increasing use of the private sector. Most staff and patients—I still have contacts with a lot—would prefer short-term use of the private sector while the NHS is strengthened. Lots has been written recently about independent sector treatment centres. The fear is that they will cherry-pick the easy cases, removing them from NHS hospitals that would use them for training.
	Follow-up is a puzzle. Who is going to deal with the complications that occur in those independent sector treatment centres? What is the cover at weekends and during holidays? How will they be staffed? Will it be by robbing other countries of staff? We have examples of recruitment agencies advertising for as many as 30 doctors from central European countries and South Africa, to say nothing of nurses, so we are going to have an unstable short-term work force.
	Another worry, which I have not had time to check and I am sure the Minister will look into, is accreditation. I am told that, in some countries, accreditation is rather less stringent than in this country and that a professor may accredit his juniors to work under him, rather than them working as individual responsible consultants elsewhere. If that is the case and those people are being accepted into this country to work unsupervised, that is worrying.
	The thing that bothers me is that, as soon as a consultant objects to the NHS using the private sector more and more, the response from most health service managers and many MPs is to think that consultants are interested only in the money in their pockets and that they would condemn anything that affects that. In my career, I did very little in the way of private medicine and knew very few colleagues who abused the system. That is backed up by a recent article in the Health Service Journal, where a former NHS finance director wrote that he had met
	"very few NHS people who are genuinely in it for the money. One reason the new consultant contract has proved so expensive is that we now count time that was previously given for free."
	Professor Wendy Savage, a well-known critic of the establishment, writes that most health professionals are motivated
	"by altruism and concern for patients' best interests. They have survived decades of underfunding followed by constant administrative change only to find that the money being put into the NHS is being siphoned off to the private sector."
	The NHS is incredibly precious to people and to its professionals. There is tremendous resistance to increasing use of the market and of the private sector at advantageous terms. With exceptions, professionals are not good at protecting the NHS. They are very short of weapons. Doctors and nurses cannot strike effectively. There have been attempts in the past to work to rule but these just did not work because whatever is done impacts on the patients. I feel that the Government know that there are no real weapons.
	The NHS Consultants Association, which has no axe to grind about private work, produced a policy statement and a manifesto. The statement said that each new policy initiative
	"should be fully assessed and where possible piloted before general introduction. Its effects should be monitored with particular reference to longer term consequences . . . .There is no evidence that the enforced purchase of services from private institutions provides more efficient or effective health care than would investing the same funds in the NHS."
	The manifesto stated:
	"The aim should be that essential additional funding is used for patient care and not wasted in market bureaucracy such as billing, invoicing and marketing, nor in the diversion of public funds to private profit."
	At first hearing, we welcomed the reports that the Secretary of State would listen, but at the same time she has promised to keep her foot on the accelerator. One wonders what hope there is for a change of pace or direction. Listening is not the end. Shakespeare, as always, has it succinctly and absolutely correctly:
	"It is the disease of not listening, the malady of not marking, that I am troubled withal."
	The malady of not marking means not acting on what one has heard, and this could be desperately important.
	To whom should the Secretary of State listen? She should listen to patients, forum members, the Patients Association and obviously the professions—not only the BMA and the RCN, but royal colleges, the academies of the medical colleges, the Hospital Consultants and Specialists Association and the NHS Consultants Association.
	I very much welcome the reports that the Secretary of State will try to go incognito into hospitals and theatres, gowned so that no one recognises her. I hope that that will be possible, because talking to people without civil servants and hospital managers would give a true picture. Why should she listen? She should do so because the ultimate weapon of the ordinary person is the ballot box. As several Labour Members have suggested, the introduction of market pressures into health and education is in flat conflict with our traditional values. The power of the ballot box is emphasised absolutely by my presence in this place.
	I do not know how today's leader in The Guardian managed to be so prescient as to write:
	"If the threats to shut down Kidderminster hospital's accident and emergency department lost Labour its seat in the town in 2001, what is the government's new competitive health market going to do in the 2009 election with hospital departments and wards being closed up and down the country?"
	The Government must wake up, because people are beginning to grasp what is going on. The leader in The Guardian continued:
	"Labour's plan is far more radical than the internal market that the Conservatives introduced in 1991."
	The Government have done so much good for the NHS. Ministers must pause, listen and act now, before it is too late.